Replies

Why won't you address the arguments?

Really. You have a problem. I think I have addressed arguments people have put forth. The bottom line is that the impetus that drove the ball into the endzone was supplied by a defender. There are no exceptions in the rules for fumbles as there are for punts. The rules for touchbacks and safeties both suggest that impetus is important. One would seem to indicate that the play could not be ruled a safety; and the other would seem to indicate that it must be ruled a touchback. In other words the two rules are consistent. I didn't make them up. I just read them.

ML/NJ

By your rationale the example, which you cited, of a blocked punt, would be a touchback for the kicking team, yet it is not. Arguing that the guy blocking the punt has no "impetus" on the football, by your reasoning, is disingenuous. He clearly is forcing the ball, by his action, toward the goal line.

The issue here, as in the play this past weekend, is that possession has not been transfered from the offense to the defense. It is clearly an analogous situation. There cannot be a touchback when the defense has no possession of the ball. Despite the action of the defender, no transfer of possession has been established, hence it is a safety.